As offices, workplaces, and families become more fragmented and geographically scattered, we rely more and more on various communication technologies to connect us. Phone calls, chat, text messages, and videoconferencing can fill the gaps in communication.
One problem with any such communication technologies, however, is that they do not capture “incidental” contact. For example, two coworkers who work in the same office may see each other spontaneously at a watercooler and have a short conversation. If the coworkers were working in separate offices, they may still schedule regular conference calls, but it won't be as spontaneous a conversation as a random water-cooler chat.
Similarly, families that are scattered geographically may have regular phone calls or even video calls to maintain a close connection. However, that still does not replace the incidental contact of seeing a family member in the kitchen and having a spontaneous conversation. Scheduled contact is never the same as spontaneous contact.
While theoretically it is possible to connect a videoconferencing device to a service and leave it on, most videoconferencing services are extremely bandwidth-intensive and generally do not allow a user to just leave them on. Furthermore, most videoconferencing services are intended for a user who is sitting right in front of the camera and microphone rather than a user who is wandering in and out; thus, their cameras and microphones tend to not be very good at picking up images or sound from a user who is wandering all over the room.
Since most videoconferencing services are designed to connect more than two points, they use up a lot of bandwidth in doing so. Two approaches to videoconferencing connections are peer-to-peer and group chat. A peer-to-peer connection between A, B, and C would mean that the system runs three connections—AB, BC, and AC. This means that for each participant, there are two outgoing video connections, which takes up a lot of bandwidth. Obviously, the more participants there are, the more connections there are and the more bandwidth is used; the peer-to-peer approach does not scale very well. An alternative to that is group chat, which connects A, B, and C to a cloud server, which then delivers the video/audio stream to every participant. While this scales better, this means that a cloud service will then have to be maintained, which is expensive. Furthermore, the bandwidth of each connection will need to be regulated.
Another issue with existing videoconferencing services and devices is that the connection is occasionally lost and has to be reestablished. If a user is not very technically adept, this is a very frustrating and complicated process, and takes away from the experience of a “real” contact.
Finally, existing videoconferencing services typically employ very small screens and do not adjust those screens or audio speakers to simulate real-life contact. No one will mistake an iPad or laptop screen for a window into another office or another home.
A need exists for a simple, easy-to-use, two-point videoconferencing system that is always on and that provides a video and audio simulation of real-life incidental contact.